"Then Ven. Angulimala, early in the morning, having put on his robes and carrying his outer robe & bowl, went into Savatthi for alms. Now at that time a clod thrown by one person hit Ven. Angulimala on the body, a stone thrown by another person hit him on the body, and a potsherd thrown by still another person hit him on the body. So Ven. Angulimala — his head broken open and dripping with blood, his bowl broken, and his outer robe ripped to shreds — went to the Blessed One. The Blessed One saw him coming from afar and on seeing him said to him: "Bear with it, brahman! Bear with it! The fruit of the kamma that would have burned you in hell for many years, many hundreds of years, many thousands of years, you are now experiencing in the here-&-now!"

Also, did Buddha say in sutta that kamma is cause for sickness like cancer?

There's no overcoming kamma in that sense; once, the Buddha met some wanderers who were doing tapas for the sake of burning off their previous kamma, but the Buddha thought that was ridiculous. Instead, he praised abandoning unskillful mental qualities and the attainment of skillful mental qualities in the here-&-now.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

daverupa wrote:There's no overcoming kamma in that sense; once, the Buddha met some wanderers who were doing tapas for the sake of burning off their previous kamma, but the Buddha thought that was ridiculous. Instead, he praised abandoning unskillful mental qualities and the attainment of skillful mental qualities in the here-&-now.

"Monks, the taking of life — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from the taking of life is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to a short life span.

"Monks, the taking of life — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from the taking of life is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to a short life span.

If ^ is true, how did Angulimala became arahath? Did he have a short life span?

"Monks, the taking of life — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from the taking of life is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to a short life span.

MN 136 wrote:"When he says thus: 'It seems that one who kills living beings... has wrong view, will always, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell,' I do not concede that to him.

"Why is that? The Tathagata's knowledge of the Great Exposition of Kamma is different.

The difference is that those who do not know and see are trying to explain their partial views.

DN 1 can be read for examples of how this limited ability to know and see manifests in various views - many of them are premised on knowledge of past lives, and others are premised on seeing beings pass away and re-arise. In each case, the problem is that the view

is only the feeling of those who do not know and do not see; that is only the agitation and vacillation of those who are immersed in craving... that is conditioned by contact. That they can experience that feeling without contact — such a case is impossible.

AN 6.63 wrote:"And what is the cessation of kamma? From the cessation of contact is the cessation of kamma; and just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma.

So worry over a kamma-calculus is really a distraction, and likely to be wrong in some way, and that's without even addressing the fact that kamma is only one among many deciding factors.

We are advised to practice in ways which do not make this sort of reference to the past and the future.

(edit - broken link repair)

Last edited by daverupa on Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

"Monks, the taking of life — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from the taking of life is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to a short life span.

If ^ is true, how did Angulimala became arahath? Did he have a short life span?

If one had committed some grave offenses but later on sincerely repented and put in 100% of their effort to better themselves, then everything is possible. It is only impossible when one had committed one of the anantarika-kamma (the five most heinous offenses of: patricide, matricide, killed an arahant, wounded a buddha, created sangha schism), which would put one on an irreversible path toward woeful states. In the case of Angulimala, it'd be impossible for him to turn back to the right path had the Buddha not intervene at the right time to stop Angulimala from killing his last victim: his own mother. THat'd be matricide, and Angulima would've had zero chance for coming back. He must've done something good in his previous life to see the Buddha at the right time!

Somehow this sound like crime and punishment to me. Sorry but why can't a person who has killed his mother then later think he did wrong, be good, become sila, meditate and become nibbana? It doesn't make sense. Why you say he will definitely be in bad states and unable to come out of his very bad actions?

I also don't buy the story that Buddha waited till he try to kill his own mother. It is my friend who told me this. She has studied criminal psychology a bit...

If Buddha thought he could help him before he killed thousands of mothers of other people he would have helped him before. But what my friend thinks is Buddha waited until Angulimala was fed up of his own actions. I read the story and thought last few days he was sick of his own actions. Earlier days he was extremely angry, determined to kill - like mentally very disturbing. I mean his mind was too much in darkness. He was not ready for any kind of thinking or compassion at all. There was no way to stop him. Little by little he got fed up of it. That was the right time to come and pull him out of it. It doesn't sound right a compassionate Buddha waited till he killed so many people (what the difference of your own mother and some other mother anyway) if he could help the guy before.

BlueLotus wrote:Somehow this sound like crime and punishment to me. Sorry but why can't a person who has killed his mother then later think he did wrong, be good, become sila, meditate and become nibbana? It doesn't make sense. Why you say he will definitely be in bad states and unable to come out of his very bad actions?

There're crimes and there're "heinous" crimes. Killing one's own parents is probably the most heinous of all crimes imaginable. As a result, it only makes sense that this negative kamma of such un-imaginable scale puts one on the irreversible course toward state of woes. I did not make this up since it's all described in the suttas ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html ). Also just to clarify on the statement of "unable to come out", if you read the whole thread, it was in the context of Angulimala not able to attain arahantship had he killed his mother. One who committed the Five Heinous crime will sure spend a very long long long time in state of woes, but that doesn't mean s/he's condemmed for all eternity..

BlueLotus wrote:Somehow this sound like crime and punishment to me. Sorry but why can't a person who has killed his mother then later think he did wrong, be good, become sila, meditate and become nibbana? It doesn't make sense. Why you say he will definitely be in bad states and unable to come out of his very bad actions?

There're crimes and there're "heinous" crimes. Killing one's own parents is probably the most heinous of all crimes imaginable. As a result, it only makes sense that this negative kamma of such un-imaginable scale puts one on the irreversible course toward state of woes. I did not make this up since it's all described in the suttas ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html ). Also just to clarify on the statement of "unable to come out", if you read the whole thread, it was in the context of Angulimala not able to attain arahantship had he killed his mother. One who committed the Five Heinous crime will sure spend a very long long long time in state of woes, but that doesn't mean s/he's condemmed for all eternity..

It is a "heinous" crime to kill your own mother but killing your neighbor's mother is not? It is possible to become arahath later even if you kill your neighbor's mother but if you kill your own mother it is not possible to become arahath in this life until you suffer in hell? Killing your own mother is unimaginable but killing your neighbor's mother is somewhat imaginable? It sound like possessive thinking of someone stuck in self-view (my mother is more precious than another's mother so the consequence should be far worse etc).

My thinking is if you kill someone it will take a very very long time to get out of that gilty or angry or bad state of mind. Obviously, it will be worse if you kill your own mother... But still, that person can do it if he try . He can do it in this life if he tries.

And what is the cessation of kamma? From the cessation of contact is the cessation of kamma

As long we live we have contact right?

Sure, but the quote is in reference to paticcanirodha because the format being used is the four truths. In this sense, the cessation of contact is the cessation of nescience (ignorance) & craving with respect to contact.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Thanks Devarupa. That makes sense. I hope you don't mind because I have some more questions. This is not because I think of this subject too much but I want to understand some of these suttas. Please let me know your thoughts on the following.

1. For a long time I thought it was random chance that some people are born rich/handsome/intelligent. But then I saw this:

"Master Gotama, what is the reason, what is the condition, why inferiority and superiority are met with among human beings, among mankind? For one meets with short-lived and long-lived people, sick and healthy people, ugly and beautiful people... What is the reason?"

"Student, beings are owners of kammas, heirs of kammas, they have kammas as their progenitor, kammas as their kin, kammas as their homing-place. It is kammas that differentiate beings according to inferiority and superiority."

Here some person kills living beings, takes what is not given, misconducts himself in sexual desires, speaks falsehood, speaks maliciously, speaks harshly, gossips, is covetous, is ill-willed, and has wrong view.[4] On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell.

Buddha explains "on the dissolution of the body, after death" sinners reappear in hell. What are your thoughts on the suttas?

Bluelotus wrote:It is a "heinous" crime to kill your own mother but killing your neighbor's mother is not? It is possible to become arahath later even if you kill your neighbor's mother but if you kill your own mother it is not possible to become arahath in this life until you suffer in hell? Killing your own mother is unimaginable but killing your neighbor's mother is somewhat imaginable? It sound like possessive thinking of someone stuck in self-view (my mother is more precious than another's mother so the consequence should be far worse etc).

Killing one's own mother who bear the pain of labor and nurturing you for so many years carries extremely severe kamma. Obviously that does not mean that killing in general will result in any trivial consequences. But there exist degrees of severity and this is undeniable. You could argue all you want but the fact remains that Angulimala had killed many people who were fathers, mothers, brothers, or sisters to someone. But then he laid down his knife, cultivated the Dhamma with all his strength, and attained arahantship right in his current life. Had he kill his own mother, he could still lay down his knife, cultivated the Dhamma with all his strength, but he would NOT be able to attain arahantship in his current life because of the Five Heinous Crimes rules specified in the suttas..

santa100 wrote:Killing one's own mother who bear the pain of labor and nurturing you for so many years carries extremely severe kamma. Obviously that does not mean that killing in general will result in any trivial consequences. But there exist degrees of severity and this is undeniable. You could argue all you want but the fact remains that Angulimala had killed many people who were fathers, mothers, brothers, or sisters to someone. But then he laid down his knife, cultivated the Dhamma with all his strength, and attained arahantship right in his current life. Had he kill his own mother, he could still lay down his knife, cultivated the Dhamma with all his strength, but he would NOT be able to attain arahantship in his current life because of the Five Heinous Crimes rules specified in the suttas..

All what you said about mother is true. Yet I do not see why someone who killed a woman who carried and labored another human being for many years can lay down the weapon and attain nibbana but cannot lay down the weapon and attain nibbana just because he happened to be the man who was in that womb. I do not see a difference in a woman who carried and nurtured you to a woman who carried and nurtured another person. I think no matter what a man does, if he try and develop meditation he should be able to find peace in this life. I don't want to blindly believe Five Heinous Crimes rules so let's just disagree on this and move on.

Bluelotus wrote:All what you said about mother is true. Yet I do not see why someone who killed a woman who carried and labored another human being for many years can lay down the weapon and attain nibbana but cannot lay down the weapon and attain nibbana just because he happened to be the man who was in that womb. I do not see a difference in a woman who carried and nurtured you to a woman who carried and nurtured another person. I think no matter what a man does, if he try and develop meditation he should be able to find peace in this life. I don't want to blindly believe Five Heinous Crimes rules so let's just disagree on this and move on.

Until we've reached enlightenment, there'll be tons of things that we do not see. So keep an open mind and keep on training. Wishing you all the best..

Thanks Bluelotus. To me, an open minded attitude means at least be open to the possibility of what the suttas say and not immediately brush aside the idea. I haven't attained "Direct Knowledge" so there's no way for me to say with 100% certainty about anything. Until that day, the "provisional" faith (not "blind" faith) I put in the teaching serves me as guide posts to further my practice..